The ref (see PGMOL thread)

[Voice of fair play]

You will get inconsistancies in how a tackle is judged as at speed in a game its difficult with 1 view, however dissent is an easy one, if you swear at the ref you are carded and yesterday he chose to pick and choose when to enforce this, personally i would deem being told to fuck off to ny face worse than what Neil did.

So why did he send one off and not the other then?

My logical answer is he thought ( and by the way he was there not you or I) that Neil’s was worse dissent.

It’s the only thing that makes sense, unless you have another answer?

Like I said earlier I agree it’s easier to be more consistent with dissent than fouls but there will always be diffrent levels of dissent and when one person gets send off and one doesn’t, common sense logic tells me the one that got sent off must be worse dissent than the one that doesn’t.

 

[wicketkeeper]

He is that person again, the one who says he has no problem with refs judgements on fouls 99% of times.

Despite slaughtering refs for exactly that 100s of times in the past

I will repeat. Find me an instance regarding the match yesterday when I have criticised the refs judgement re fouls.
I will save you the bother of looking. I havent done it

 

[Flavonoids]

Of course it is, consistently has never happened ever in football and never will, as all instances different they not the same.

If you can give me a valid reason why a ref would not send someone of for the exact same instance and not another I will take that seriously?

Can you?

And no instances are exactly the same.

Because he likes or dislikes a player that he's refereed before... or are you saying there's no personality bias involved in football, either generated previously or during the current match? ... conscious or unconscious.

 

[Roker Magic]

This is totally wrong and totally working from hindsight.
If a player has done the same thing hundreds of times and seen others do the same with no consequences he is entitled to assume the same result on this occasion.
You can not criticise the player because one ref makes a totally unprecedented decisionx

Okay, so let him carry on doing it then. Especially when he's on a yellow.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Because he likes or dislikes a player that he's refereed before... or are you saying there's no personality bias involved in football, either generated previously or during the current match? ... conscious or unconscious.

Yeah and in them situations it’s always Sunderland players he dislikes more!

Never the other way round.

 

[sofatester]

James Hunter gets it spot on

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Cyprus]

I'm not sure a red card in response to questioning a ref is the way forward. Until that point the match was on a knife edge and it ruined the game.

I received a text message from a Boro supporting colleague who was over the moon with the result, but as a football fan believes that questions need to be asked as to whether this is the correct approach and he felt that a word with Dan Neil would have been sufficient.

The sending off was a huge turning point but Middlesbrough were clinical and ruthless in the second half and ran out convincing winners in the end.

Last season in this fixture you could say that decisions went in our favour, this time it hasn't, we move on.

 

[wicketkeeper]

So why did he send one off and not the other then?

My logical answer is he thought ( and by the way he was there not you or I) that Neil’s was worse dissent.

It’s the only thing that makes sense, unless you have another answer?

Like I said earlier I agree it’s easier to be more consistent with dissent than fouls but there will always be diffrent levels of dissent and when one person gets send off and one doesn’t, common sense logic tells me the one that got sent off must be worse dissent than the one that doesn’t.

It was an unprecedented decision.
To my knowledge not one player has been sent off for doing what he said even though it will have happened thousands of times

 

[Flavonoids]

Yeah and in them situations it’s always Sunderland players he dislikes more!

Never the other way round.

So the answer is "yeah" ... I'll ignore the rest as I answered your question satisfactorily.

 

[wicketkeeper]

Okay, so let him carry on doing it then. Especially when he's on a yellow.

How can he be expected to know that one referee will do what thousands of referees have not done in the past
That is a fault with the system not the player

 

[Voice of fair play]

I will repeat. Find me an instance regarding the match yesterday when I have criticised the refs judgement re fouls.
I will save you the bother of looking. I havent done it

Not sure whether you can read or don’t bother reading, as I have already said you didn’t in this particular match but have 100 times in others

You said and I can bring up the quote if you like, ‘ I have no problem with refs judgements 99% of times’

That quote is a lie

 

[KEYOPener]

The evidence of past is that they would be that he would not be punished

 

[Father Jack Hackett]

James Hunter gets it spot on

You must be logged on to see external links

Bang-on

 

[Voice of fair play]

So the answer is "yeah" ... I'll ignore the rest as I answered your question satisfactorily.

I think it’s logically more sensible to suggest a player is sent off for dissent becuase of the level of it, than some mysterious basis against a player.

As far as I aware this ref hardly reffed against Neil, unless you suggesting he has watched the lad on the telly and thought I don’t like him, I will send him off when I do ref against him?

It was an unprecedented decision.
To my knowledge not one player has been sent off for doing what he said even though it will have happened thousands of times

That has not answered the questions in the post.

 

[wicketkeeper]

Not sure whether you can read or don’t bother reading, as I have already said you didn’t in this particular match but have 100 times in others

You said and I can bring up the quote if you like, ‘ I have no problem with refs judgements 99% of times’

That quote is a lie

What can I say I have already demonstrated to you that that is not what I have did.
In fact I would go further and say I dont think I have done it this season

I think it’s logically more sensible to suggest a player is sent off for dissent becuase of the level of it, than some mysterious basis against a player.

As far as I aware this ref hardly reffed against Neil, unless you suggesting he has watched the lad on the telly and thought I don’t like him, I will send him off when I do ref against him?

That has not answered the questions in the post.

A fair summation

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Father Jack Hackett]

The last thing I have to say on this thread is:

Worra c unt

 

[Voice of fair play]

What can I say I have already demonstrated to you that that is not what I have did.
In fact I would go further and say I dont think I have done it this season

Did your quote read I have not questioned refs on fouls this season or this match.

No it said I have no problem with refs decisions 99% of times that is a lie.

 

[Flavonoids]

I think it’s logically more sensible to suggest a player is sent off for dissent becuase of the level of it, than some mysterious basis against a player.

As far as I aware this ref hardly reffed against Neil, unless you suggesting he has watched the lad on the telly and thought I don’t like him, I will send him off when I do ref against him?

That has not answered the questions in the post.

It's not mysterious, nor is your inability to accept a perfectly valid answer to your question. Refs are human, as you never tire of telling us, so they react based on their own emotions and their perceptions of others on the field, whether historical or arrived at in the previous 30 seconds, consciously or unconsciously.

Or maybe psychology is one of them made up sciences, a load of old shit.

 

[wicketkeeper]

Did your quote read I have not questioned refs on fouls this season or this match.

No it said I have no problem with refs decisions 99% of times that is a lie.

I am talking in the present text.
Also although I do not subscribe to the theory that the ref wanted to be the star of the show as someone who has played football and cricket on a regular basis you know that players always think officials who act outside the norm or in an unprecedented way like this referee did as a bit strange and untrustworthy.

 

[rob79safc]

Boro look a decent team and deserved it today tbh. The ref was poor but not enough to affect the result. Carrick had obviously done his homework and your lot were the better team. No complaints, could have been five or six.

keep off the drugs kid